Looks like there were two dossiers.<br>The September Dossier<br>The "Dodgy" Dossier<br><br>Look like the first was not proven incorrect, in fact the BBC had to apologize to the British Govenment for making false claims against the September dossier.<br><br>It was the "Dodgy" Dossier that included parts that were "lifted" rfom a thesis. The British Government said they should have "creditied" the original author but that the conclusions were solid.<br><br>I guess if one personally believes the intelligence of these two documents is up to you but I can't find anything where someone has disproved the contents of the dossiers. People may disagree with the contents but no disproved.<br><br>As far as I can tell the British govement still stands behind both even thought the second is an embarrasment due to the plagerism.<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003

Again, you can't be serious.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>President Bush and Sec. Powell got duped and we went to war.<p><hr></blockquote><p>You think we went ot war over two forged documents about a yellowcake purchase? Yikes.<br><br>Two things. Should the statement have been in the SOTU? Probably not at the time the speech was given. Does that mean then Iraq was not seeking the material, no. The two things don't logically connect.<br><br>Iraq was more than likely trying to purchase the yellowcake. The forged Niger documents have no impact on the yellowcake conclusion since the modern conclusions about this subject are not based on or even rely on those documents.<br><br><br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003

timeline of events<br><br>Powell, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice all made Saddam's quest for nuclear materials a component of the argument for war. All have admitted that the intelligence was wrong -- the documents were proven forgeries.<br><br>If the documents had been verified authentic, I totally agree that Saddam needed to be kicked on his ass for that reason alone. <br><br>Again, my point is that these forged documents are of much greater importance than Dan Rather's blunder... so how about looking closely at them as well.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>

I think I'm missing something here.<br><br>The "16 words" shouldn't have been in the SOTU because the intelligence wasn't firm enough at that time. OK, granted.<br><br>Now, sitting in 2004, while we don't have access to all the raw intelligence it is more likely than it is not that Iraq was seeking to buy some yellowcake.<br><br>Now, some of the documents were forgeries. This is not disputed. But these documents are not the foundation or even the cornerstone of the intelligence regarding the purchase of yellowcake.<br><br>So, what is it exactly that needs a closer look?<br><br><br><br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Now, sitting in 2004, while we don't have access to all the raw intelligence it is more likely than it is not that Iraq was seeking to buy some yellowcake.<p><hr></blockquote><p>given the lack of WMD and infrastructure, i would say that it's highly unlikely that iraq was seeking yellowcake uranium with our current hindsight.<br><br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

The one doesn't follow from the other.<br>Your argument is that one needs to have WMDs prior to seeking the yellowcake?<br>Or one needs to posses the refining equipment prior to seeking yellowcake?<br><br>I leave you with this: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=222<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003

If someone or some country supplied our government with forged documents trying to provoke US action against Iraq by claiming a substancial nuclear threat, I think it's important to know who that is, friend or foe. A long list could be made -- we've got a dubious relationship with Ahmed Chalabi, tension with Iran, Al Queda operatives, spies in the Pentagon, as well as Michael Moore.<br><br><br>edit: Italian supplied forgeries, British cordination in vetting the info.... it's all pretty confusing.<br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by garyW on 09/11/04 01:08 AM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>

Some credible current thinking is that the forged documents were supplied to do exactly the opposite. The documents were so bad (sound familiar?) the hope was that the discovery would derail the investigation.<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003

At first the CIA gave them the thumbs up. The IAEA nailed them as forgeries. The President and his staff listened to the CIA and made them part of the arguement for war. <br><br>While Internetland is searching for 1970's IBM Selectric Times Roman type balls with curly apostrophes and custom made superscripts, these other documents just fell off the radar. It just seems to me if these forgeries can be pinned down, in terms of our national security it's a lot bigger 'gotcha' than nailing Dan Rather.<br><br><br>***And just to cut through the BS, I do not think this is a Rove inspired policy making trick. I think it's an issue of other countries f*cking with us trying to start a war.<br><br><br><br>

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.